Skip to content
Name: In re D.B.
Case #: G051319
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/26/2015
Summary

Where juvenile court concluded that conditions prompting jurisdiction no longer existed, it could not qualify termination of jurisdiction on the issuance of a restraining order against father. The minor was taken into custody due to neglect stemming primarily from mother’s homelessness. Mother had previously been given custody of the minor due to a domestic violence restraining order against father. At a six-month review hearing, the Department recommended termination of jurisdiction, as mother had a stable residence. The court found that conditions no longer existed which caused the court to assume jurisdiction, but wanted to issue a restraining order against father. It offered father the option that if he objected to the restraining order, the court would continue dependency jurisdiction. Father objected to the restraining order, and over mother’s objection, the court continued dependency jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed and remanded with directions to enter an order terminating dependency jurisdiction. Once the court found that the conditions which justified assumption of jurisdiction no longer existed, it was required by section 364, subdivision (c) to terminate jurisdiction. The juvenile court had no authority to keep the case open and subject mother and the minor to continued dependency supervision because it was concerned about father’s apparent anger issues. The juvenile court had the authority under other code sections to issue protective orders. Upon remand, the juvenile court may consider issuing orders under those sections.